Is Testing the Welfare Recipients for Drugs Beneficial?

Is testing the welfare recipients for drugs beneficial?

The issue of testing the recipients of government aids for the less privileged has for a long time been generating a lot of debates. What is more critical is the credibility of the process, in terms of the benefit it brings, or the possibly positive outcome of the whole screening process. The welfare program according to Budd is a program ran by the government with an aim of helping citizens who are either receiving little in terms of income or those who entirely survive under strenuous condition as a result of being without a source of livelihood (2011). In most cases these needy people are looked down upon by the general society such that they are prone to public discrimination on the basis of them being needy. The content of this research paper focuses on trying to establish whether the random screening of the welfare recipients has any benefit to all the stakeholders ranging from the taxpayers, the state and the beneficiaries themselves. It also focuses on establishing whether welfare recipients should be screened for drug use before being enrolled for the welfare programs or whether the screening of these people amount to discrimination across the social strata.

Walters argues that testing the welfare recipients for drugs abuse is the most logical thing to do since most of the people working in the private and public sectors, under go the same screening before being offered their jobs (2012). On the same, they reason that the latter after getting employed are subjected to heavy taxation; with their taxes being used to fund government initiatives like the welfare programs. This, they claim, warrants the screening of the welfare recipient for drugs, on the basis of they are reaping from the tax payers without much sweat, thus should be screened for accountability.

Walters states that most of the pro testing of the welfare recipients for drugs will bring to light those swindling taxpayers money at the pretext of living in hardships. This brings out the fact that in as much as people are ready to assist the less fortunate in the society, there are limitations in as far as the social morality of the recipients is concerned. He further points out that economic constrains should not be the basis for sidelining some groups and condemning them along their economic challenges. This is again supported by the fact that most of those who support anti submissive and compulsory testing of the welfare beneficiaries, believe that it is done with malice and ill intent to intimidate the less privileged in the society.

According to Laura, Kristen and Carli (2011), screening the welfare beneficiaries will encourage those on the program who abuse drugs to change their trend considering the fact that their economic survival depend on their producing a clean image. Testing the welfare beneficiaries could only be beneficial if the test is aimed at assisting the less fortunate to mould their life into a more productive and objective life. This is opposed to the fact that most tax payers in support of testing argue that to hold the beneficiaries of their hard earned money accountable and to check the abuse of the welfare program, is only prudent to regularly screen them objectively, as opposed to subjectively. It is claimed that some of the latter compare the aid given to the welfare beneficiaries, to the aids given to the heads of institutions and organizations. On the same, questions are raised on whether really the screening should only target the government aid beneficiaries who are less privileged while favoring those who are economically able. This from every angle is seen as derogatory discrimination by the government.

Apart from this perspective of supporting the testing of the welfare recipient, other pro testing, according to Walters assert that regular testing of the welfare beneficiaries is beneficial in the sense that, it will encourage them to live a drug free life thus boosting their probability of getting better jobs and moving from the financial support groups. This argument according to Laura, Kristen and Carli (2011) is beneficial to the welfare beneficiaries especially those that abuse drugs. This is so because, the welfare recipients who have drug challenges might get to be assisted to overcome their challenges thus getting their life back to normalcy.

It is argued that minus the compulsory screening, the latter may be headed to self destruction since the government supplies them with continuous funding thus making the access available and affordable. Another benefit as argued by Laura, Kristen and Carli is that should the bill supporting testing for the welfare recipient be passed, is that the circulation and purchase of illegal drugs could be minimized considerably. This owes to the fact that after the screening, those caught with the drug abuse challenge would be denied money which they otherwise would have used to purchase more drugs. This according to xxx would ensure that our families and the society would be safer especially for the little children.

Ife and Liz (2011) continues to argue that assisting the welfare beneficiaries who are facing drug abuse challenges is equal to according those who depend on them for provisions. The latter would be the case since children raised by drugs abusing parents are much prone to abuse by their parents thus; controlling the use of drugs especially among people aided by the government could be of paramount benefit not only to the welfare drug abusers but also to their children, families and the society. One common thing across pro random testing is that, taxpayers are ready to pay as long as their money ends up being utilized productively.

On the flip side, there are others who believe that random testing of the welfare beneficiaries is discriminatory. According to Lower-Basch (2012), most of those opposed to random testing believe that it is stereo-typical and unconstitutional. It is seen stereotypical in the sense that it targets the less fortunate whom people tend to affiliate with drug abuse challenges, with some associating the latter's hardships with drug abuse related problems . Laura, Kristen

...